R v Edgerton

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2019-092-8422

[2020] NZHC 1891

THE QUEEN

v

NEVILLE ANDREW EDGERTON

Hearing: 31 July 2020

Appearances:

M S Williams for the Crown M Allen for the Defendant

Judgment:

31 July 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Kayes Fletcher Walker), Manukau Public Defence Service, Manukau

[1] When Mr Edgerton was before me for sentence on 14 July 2020, there appeared to be two charges of breach of release conditions pursuant to s 71 of the Parole Act 2002. However, Mr Edgerton’s criminal history record only showed a conviction entered on one such breach. For that reason, I was not prepared to sentence him on the two breaches until further inquiries were made of the District Court.

[2] Since then, this Court has obtained a transcript of what transpired in the District Court when Mr Edgerton appeared for sentence. I am now satisfied that on the second breach of release conditions pursuant to s 71 of the Act, Mr Edgerton did enter a guilty plea and accordingly he is now convicted and discharged on that offence.

[3] As occurred with the sentencing on 14 July 2020, Mr Edgerton was in the Court precincts (Court cells) but he refused to enter the courtroom. Accordingly, I followed the procedure I adopted on 14 July 2020.1 Mr Edgerton’s counsel informed me that she had fully explained to him the purpose of and reasons for today’s sentencing. Also, before the sentencing proceeding, the Court security officers checked more than once to see if Mr Edgerton would agree to enter the courtroom, but he refused do so.

Duffy J

1 R v Edgerton [2020] NZHC 1694.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Neville Andrew Edgerton was heard on 31 July 2020. The defendant, Neville Andrew Edgerton, was facing two charges of breach of release conditions under the Parole Act 2002. Initially, it appeared that Edgerton had been convicted for only one such breach, but further inquiries revealed that he had indeed pleaded guilty to the second breach in the District Court. The defendant was present in the court precincts but refused to enter the courtroom, necessitating a continuation of the sentencing hearing through alternative means.

The primary legal issue before the court was the confirmation of the defendant's convictions on both charges of breach of release conditions. Given that Edgerton had pleaded guilty to the second charge in the District Court, the court needed to confirm this plea and proceed with sentencing. Additionally, the court had to address the procedural challenge posed by Edgerton's refusal to enter the courtroom. The court had to ensure that all legal requirements were met despite these obstacles.

The court reviewed the transcript from the District Court to confirm Edgerton's guilty plea on the second charge. Having established this, the court proceeded to sentence him for both breaches. The judge acknowledged that Edgerton's counsel had fully explained the purpose and reasons for the sentencing hearing to him. Despite multiple attempts by court security officers to persuade Edgerton to enter the courtroom, he remained steadfast in his refusal. The judge followed the same procedure as in the previous sentencing hearing on 14 July 2020, ensuring that all legal requirements were met even under these challenging circumstances.

In conclusion, the court confirmed the defendant's convictions on both charges of breach of release conditions. The final orders of the court included sentencing the defendant accordingly, taking into account his refusal to enter the courtroom and the need to ensure that all legal processes were adhered to despite these challenges.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	31 July 2020
Appearances:	M S Williams for the Crown M Allen for the Defendant
Judgment:	31 July 2020